As the article points out, JetBlue has been strongly opposed to the years-long campaign launched by the big three airlines of the US—United, American, Delta — to fight what the three regard as unfair governmental subsidies enjoyed by the ME3—Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, which utilized fifth freedom rights on trans-Atlantic routes between the Middle East and the US via Europe, putting the US big three at disadvantage.

Now JetBlue, following that same logic, is calling out United Airlines for its silence over Air China’s proposed Beijing-Panama intercontinental route via Houston involving the same use of fifth freedom rights, arguing that "all state-owned airlines should be treated in a similar manner".

The whole article is behind the membership-wall though, I guess its gist is clear enough for some meaningful discussions. So, do you think JetBlue has a good case to make against United here? Why does United keep silent over the issue? Should fifth freedom rights be granted to Air China on this proposed route?

Have the MEB3 really affected US carriers that much on flights from Europe to the US? Emirates launched ATH-EWR but from what I can see this has not affected AA from PHL, DL from JFK while UA has even upgraded the route to a B764.

What a surprise UA hasn't said anything. Nothing like hypocrisy! And hypocrisy on a city-pair - Houston-Panama City - that typically has very high return fares - often $900+ return when I look - for local traffic*.

* As local fares to/from a hub tend to have.

"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."

Air China is known for ridiculously cheap fares, much lower than ME3 or probably any other airline serving US. So why would United want Air China on PTY-IAH. Air China would price that sector very low and also transiting via US airports for international passengers is least desirable. Many of Air China's passengers would have to then get US visas just to get to PTY. Would be better if Air China tried via Vancouver or Calgary or Toronto.

Air China is known for ridiculously cheap fares, much lower than ME3 or probably any other airline serving US. So why would United want Air China on PTY-IAH. Air China would price that sector very low and also transiting via US airports for international passengers is least desirable. Many of Air China's passengers would have to then get US visas just to get to PTY. Would be better if Air China tried via Vancouver or Calgary or Toronto.

1. CA doesn't fly to YYZ or YYC. Only YVR and YUL.2. 5th freedom rights for Chinese carriers through Canada are maxed out.3. Those passengers would need to get Canadian visas instead of US ones, as the China Transit program through Canada only applies if your final destination is in the US, and is only applicable at YVR, YYC and YYZ (T1).

Air China is known for ridiculously cheap fares, much lower than ME3 or probably any other airline serving US. So why would United want Air China on PTY-IAH. Air China would price that sector very low and also transiting via US airports for international passengers is least desirable. Many of Air China's passengers would have to then get US visas just to get to PTY. Would be better if Air China tried via Vancouver or Calgary or Toronto.

...in which case those same passengers would need Canadian visas instead...

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

Regardless, jetBlue has a point. Yes, they do need to focus on their on time performance. No, they don't need to focus on Alaska Airlines (stop with the merger BS already). I had no idea they had bad PR right now to begin with, but regardless, jetBlue has a point. They turned the rise of the ME3 presence in the US into their own advantage by partnering with one of them to feed their domestic network, which was really a genius move considering EK's presence in JFK (largest), MCO, FLL, and BOS.

While I'm really split on the matter between the US3 and ME3, the bottom line here is that jetBlue has a point.

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

Why should they butt out when the matter of 5th freedom rights for foreign carriers directly affects them?

As the article points out, JetBlue has been strongly opposed to the years-long campaign launched by the big three airlines of the US—United, American, Delta — to fight what the three regard as unfair governmental subsidies enjoyed by the ME3—Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, which utilized fifth freedom rights on trans-Atlantic routes between the Middle East and the US via Europe, putting the US big three at disadvantage.

Now JetBlue, following that same logic, is calling out United Airlines for its silence over Air China’s proposed Beijing-Panama intercontinental route via Houston involving the same use of fifth freedom rights, arguing that "all state-owned airlines should be treated in a similar manner".

The whole article is behind the membership-wall though, I guess its gist is clear enough for some meaningful discussions. So, do you think JetBlue has a good case to make against United here? Why does United keep silent over the issue? Should fifth freedom rights be granted to Air China on this proposed route?

So is JetBlue finally coming out and saying the ME3 is wrong? B6 didn't complain when EK started EWR-ATH, so if they want to complain about Air China's route, they also need to come out and say EK is wrong as well.

B6 needs to worry about their own trainwreck they have in house. Take all that money they make off EK and pay your crews.

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

Oh puh-leeze. B6 can walk and chew gum at the same time. And for what it's worth, the "big boys" make their business everyone's business by being the "big boys". Kinda hard to ignore them (do so at your own peril).

-Dave

”Yet somewhere in Iceland a great anger stirred in the soul of a troubled individual...” - Revelation

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

Fifth Freedom implies the right to transport between the intermediate stops. Meaning CA could sell IAH-PTY tickets.

I love how everybody says B6 needs to mind their own business. They provide big feed to EK, any restrictions imposed by the feds on the ME3 would hit them hard, so it is absolutely their business. UA is hypocritical and it's right for them to be called out on it.

But we don't seem to care about the Chinese carriers all offering rock bottom prices to Asia...

Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

I stand corrected...they are selling tickets from houston to panama...sad

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

I stand corrected...they are selling tickets from houston to panama...sad

Why is something that is perfectly legal within the negotiated bilaterals “sad”?

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

I stand corrected...they are selling tickets from houston to panama...sad

reread the original post it's "proposed" which I think is fine as long as the US3 gets a reciprocal 5th freedom

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

I stand corrected...they are selling tickets from houston to panama...sad

reread the original post it's "proposed" which I think is fine as long as the US3 gets a reciprocal 5th freedom

The US3 have an entire world of 5th freedoms available to them to exploit yet choose not to. In fact look in Asia where DL and UA have abandoned a lot of their longstanding 5ths.

What a surprise UA hasn't said anything. Nothing like hypocrisy! And hypocrisy on a city-pair - Houston-Panama City - that typically has very high return fares - often $900+ return when I look - for local traffic*.

* As local fares to/from a hub tend to have.

Perhaps UA is silent because that IAH-PTY will bear CM code-share also as its IAH-PTY?

1) air China is flying pax originating in China to houston...dropping some off...then continuing to Panama to drop the rest off. They don't pick up passengers traveling from houston to panama...only houston to china with a "tech" stop in panama.

2) EK is flying pax from Dubai to Europe...picking up more pax (that's the big difference) that aren't originating in UAE and transporting them to the US.

Air China is essentially transport passengers to and from China.

EK is transporting passengers to and from Dubai and to and from Europe.

At least that's what it appears to be...i could be interpreting it wrong.

I stand corrected...they are selling tickets from houston to panama...sad

reread the original post it's "proposed" which I think is fine as long as the US3 gets a reciprocal 5th freedom

The US carriers have access to probably the most generous fifth freedom rights in the world. Remember the NW/DL hub in Tokyo, United flying beyond Tokyo and Hong Kong, and way-back-when PanAm flying intra-Europe and intra-Asia. All with fifth freedom rights.

The reality is that the business model for the US carriers has shifted over time, but that doesn’t make fifth freedom traffic bad per se.

The US3 have an entire world of 5th freedoms available to them to exploit yet choose not to. In fact look in Asia where DL and UA have abandoned a lot of their longstanding 5ths.[/quote]

They "choose not to" because a publicly traded airline that has to turn a profit and is financially responsible to its shareholders can not compete with a state owned airline. Now that state owned airline is in the US flying US passengers to other countries. Not quite the same thing.

Personally I don't think the US airlines should be doing most of that 5th freedom flying now that those countries have their own mature aviation industries.

Last edited by Tkt96 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The US3 have an entire world of 5th freedoms available to them to exploit yet choose not to. In fact look in Asia where DL and UA have abandoned a lot of their longstanding 5ths.

They "choose not to" because a publicly traded airline that has to turn a profit and is financially responsible to its shareholders can not compete with a state owned airline. Now that state owned airline is in the US flying US passengers to other countries. Not quite the same thing.[/quote]

Well, ever since OA went bust and DL turned ATH into a seasonal destination, there were no flights to New York during winter time until EK showed up. What was ATH supposed to do? To turn them down and to say that they are not interested just because they would rather be seasonally ripped off by DL and others?

Emirates charges around €500 for a return ticket during the slow months. Initial loads were abysmal but things are slowly improving.

Also, there seems to be a very one-sided approach on this portal. In order for these flights to happen Europeans have to give their blessing as well. If we don't mind then why should you? These airlines are not just transporting US citizens but Europeans as well.

There is a fundamental difference between using the USA as the way point when the endpoint is beyond economical non-stop range and using the EU as a waypoint when there are also non-stops between the endpoints. At 7700nm the route is one where a stop makes sense. At 6000nm EK have hundreds of aircraft that can travel DXB-JFK non-stop.

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

While I'm sympathetic to B6's argument, there is an something here that hasn't been acknowledged: The US and China don't have open skies with each other unike the UAE and Qatar. CA's fifth freedom flight is presumably governed by the treaties that the US, China, and Panama have with each other. The whole crux of the US3's argument revolves around the notion that the ME3 are in violation of open skies.

It's impossible to treat every fifth freedom flight the same unless everyone starts using the exact same bilaterals IMO.

Not really. The difference her between B6/EK and UA/CA is that this is a simple 5th Fredom route from the US. B6s situation is that Congress awarded them all government contracts to move govt employees overseas, and the only way B6 can do that is to send them on EK and not their own aircraft. Whereas UA, the previous contract holder, had the network and fleet in place to do so, along with AA and DL.

You know all is right is the world when the only thing people worry about is if the president had sex with a pornstar.

The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.

We all know that. And now that those subsidies have expired UA is pulling out of the unsustainable cities. The ME3 receive subsidies from their home nations govts.

Because no airline has ever opened a new city pair with marketing or other subsidies then canceled the service when the subsidies end. I am sure B6 has never done that.

The point of these subsidies is to grow service and see if the subsidies can stimulate the potential for a new long-term market.Every market needs to pull it weight in the broader context of the network. That does not mean that it needs to be profitable, it simply means that an airline may stay in a market even after subsidies end if they feel it is necessary for the airline to serve that marker even at a loss.

I am not sure I see the line of sight argument that B6 is making, except to try to say UA is influenced by China in these. That is bridge too far for me to cross and I doubt it will have any meaningful point to the government.

I do think UA is silent because they do not want an issue with China as a whole. Meaning, UA may not approve of the request, but it is very different to disagree than it is to publicly disent. UA did not get caught like Marriott or Delta that caused them to sack people because of stating something about Tiawan that we know China will take issue with. There are cultural issues that should be understood and that it may be in the interest of UA to say silent even if they disagree.

Heck why would UA want competition on this route they get a huge premium on. I bet they don't, but.....

We all know that. And now that those subsidies have expired UA is pulling out of the unsustainable cities. The ME3 receive subsidies from their home nations govts.

Because no airline has ever opened a new city pair with marketing or other subsidies then canceled the service when the subsidies end. I am sure B6 has never done that.

The point of these subsidies is to grow service and see if the subsidies can stimulate the potential for a new long-term market.Every market needs to pull it weight in the broader context of the network. That does not mean that it needs to be profitable, it simply means that an airline may stay in a market even after subsidies end if they feel it is necessary for the airline to serve that marker even at a loss.

I am not sure I see the line of sight argument that B6 is making, except to try to say UA is influenced by China in these. That is bridge too far for me to cross and I doubt it will have any meaningful point to the government.

I do think UA is silent because they do not want an issue with China as a whole. Meaning, UA may not approve of the request, but it is very different to disagree than it is to publicly disent. UA did not get caught like Marriott or Delta that caused them to sack people because of stating something about Tiawan that we know China will take issue with. There are cultural issues that should be understood and that it may be in the interest of UA to say silent even if they disagree.

Heck why would UA want competition on this route they get a huge premium on. I bet they don't, but.....

Jetblue is just saying United is being hypocritical in this case by not raising this as an issue when the route is started by their alliance partner. And from that context, they also shouldn’t make big deal about fifth freedom route operated by emirates into us. Now I am sure ua is also silent due to sensitivity on china issue, but the bottom line is that they are only targeting Middle East airlines on this 5th freedom matter.

We all know that. And now that those subsidies have expired UA is pulling out of the unsustainable cities. The ME3 receive subsidies from their home nations govts.

Because no airline has ever opened a new city pair with marketing or other subsidies then canceled the service when the subsidies end. I am sure B6 has never done that.

The point of these subsidies is to grow service and see if the subsidies can stimulate the potential for a new long-term market.Every market needs to pull it weight in the broader context of the network. That does not mean that it needs to be profitable, it simply means that an airline may stay in a market even after subsidies end if they feel it is necessary for the airline to serve that marker even at a loss.

I am not sure I see the line of sight argument that B6 is making, except to try to say UA is influenced by China in these. That is bridge too far for me to cross and I doubt it will have any meaningful point to the government.

I do think UA is silent because they do not want an issue with China as a whole. Meaning, UA may not approve of the request, but it is very different to disagree than it is to publicly disent. UA did not get caught like Marriott or Delta that caused them to sack people because of stating something about Tiawan that we know China will take issue with. There are cultural issues that should be understood and that it may be in the interest of UA to say silent even if they disagree.

Heck why would UA want competition on this route they get a huge premium on. I bet they don't, but.....

Jetblue is just saying United is being hypocritical in this case by not raising this as an issue when the route is started by their alliance partner. And from that context, they also shouldn’t make big deal about fifth freedom route operated by emirates into us. Now I am sure ua is also silent due to sensitivity on china issue, but the bottom line is that they are only targeting Middle East airlines on this 5th freedom matter.

Is everyone vocal about everything they disagree with NO, they are not. That was my point.I am sure there are MANY things UA is silent on and vice versa is true.If UA is to take a public opinion on every matter they would essentially be just a lobbying body and why bother being an airline. (yes, that is sarcasm)

I am sure B6 is not publicly vocal on every matter on every topic as well. Yes, they are all hypocritical. Yes, they are a business to make money and they will be most vocal when it is in their best interest and not when it does not.

I think to compare the 2 situations is not at all fair as others have pointed out, but yes all companies are hypocritical. I will just stop there.

I respectfully contradict you. The vast majority of airlines have traffic rights according to the scheme "homeland points - intermediate points - points in the US - points beyond". As US airlines have full traffic rights on reciprocal schemes. But almost 100% of those rights are not utilsed today. BA doesn't fly between US mailnland and Japan any more, and neither do IB and LH serve Latin/South America via the US any longer. US airline hubs at LHR, ORY/CDG, FRA etc. are gone forever...

Why is something that is perfectly legal within the negotiated bilaterals “sad”?

Actually it’s cool. 5th freedoms are cool.

It's only a few years since the use of fifth freedom rights was the norm for almost all long haul flights - the US carriers included. Over the years, carriers have slowly abandoned these links as aircraft ranges have increased (eliminating the need for intermediate stops) and as the competitive nature of air transport has meant that accommodating crews at intermediate points on multi-day (sometimes more than a week) rosters was very expensive, and the benefits often did not exceed the costs. We now live in an era where almost all flights are simple hub-to-destination-and-return services for these reasons. But there are still some routes for which fifth freedom is not only still very much in use, but essential to ensure that the flight can even occur. Examples here are QF's SYD-SIN/DXB-LHR and NZ's AKL-LAX-LHR, both of which flights are physically impossible without an intermediate stop, and would not be remotely viable if the intermediate stop did not have fifth freedom rights.

As you so correctly point out, fifth freedom rights are voluntarily negotiated between governments and are in that context a "right" of the parties, not a privilege. That some carriers subsequently don't like the potential for competition is neither here nor there. I do find it somewhat amusing that the "bastion of free enterprise", the USA, is one of the countries most resistant to competition. Relax, guys, and go with the flow!

As a matter of interest, the Tasman Sea crossing (between Australia and NZ) has a number of fifth freedom services operating, by airlines like SQ, CI, D7, LA, EK (have I missed any?). The "home" carriers (QF, NZ, VA and JQ) don't quibble about this - not least because they generally have the rights to operate such fifth freedom flights from those carriers' home bases, should they choose to. Presumably, the US government negotiated some quid pro quo with China when it allowed fifth freedom access in the US-China bilateral. Meanwhile, back on the Tasman, the competition on some sectors is great for the customer, and it hasn't stopped "home" carriers like NZ and QF from making really decent profits.

Why is something that is perfectly legal within the negotiated bilaterals “sad”?Presumably, the US government negotiated some quid pro quo with China when it allowed fifth freedom access in the US-China bilateral.

US carriers have had long standing fifth freedom rights from Japan to China. Delta only recently ended its NRT-PVG service. I don't think the bilateral would have only allowed fifth freedom to/from one country and not the other.

What I find interesting is why B6 has any input whatsoever? B6 does not serve PTY, period. Though...perhaps it has to do with B6's cozy relationship with the ME3 they've used to circumvent the Fly America Act on many routes? Sounds like its in B6's best interest to be a vocal opponent of the US3 as a fair amount of their Int'l feed comes from these carriers. Having looked at their CS partners, they do not partner with any CN carriers which is undoubtedly why they feel comfortable spouting off on this particular example. If memory serves, AS also opposed the US3's stance on the ME3. But seeing as AS partners with 2 of the 3 CN3 carriers they've clearly found it prudent to keep their mouths closed with this particular example. For B6's sake lets hope they have no plans to expand their WC presence or maybe they're banking on China having a short memory span?

Bottom line is, lets not kid ourselves into thinking that B6 doesn't exploit loopholes, speak out or remain silent when it is to their benefit.Dollars to donuts B6 would be every bit a vocal as the US3 if they had anywhere near a comparable international network. Easy to be vocal when you are a largely domestic carrier recieving feed from others with an international presense to a region largely devoid of strong internation competition....

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

Regardless, jetBlue has a point. Yes, they do need to focus on their on time performance. No, they don't need to focus on Alaska Airlines (stop with the merger BS already). I had no idea they had bad PR right now to begin with, but regardless, jetBlue has a point. They turned the rise of the ME3 presence in the US into their own advantage by partnering with one of them to feed their domestic network, which was really a genius move considering EK's presence in JFK (largest), MCO, FLL, and BOS.

While I'm really split on the matter between the US3 and ME3, the bottom line here is that jetBlue has a point.

One of the great ironies of the ME3 v US3 spat is how effectively AS and B6 have used this to buddy up with EK. The EK flights to SEA and FLL in particular are as viable as they are because of feed from AS and B6 respectively. No question the number of seats to JFK is also correlated with B6 feed. These airlines all being outside alliances hasn't hurt the ability to really cooperate against the alliances dominated by US3 and Western European competition.

I think JetBlue needs to focus its energies on what it does the best and that is the US domestic, Caribbean market and to a lesser extent, Central America and also what Alaska Airlines is up to. B6 really needs to butt out of the big boys business like when they tried to interfere with the DL/KE JV. B6 should also be focusing on how it can improve its relations with the public and get its flights to arrive on time, not worrying about what UA and Air China are doing.

Ah, so they need to butt out, but you can tell them what to do? There's nothing like consistency.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

I don't quite get it. Is B6 saying that in order to be consistent, United has got to come out publicly against ALL 5th freedom routes by foreign carriers touching the US? I don't see that posture as the only one that is consistent.

The equivalent service to EK's 5th freedom routes would be Air China to pipe a bunch of fifth freedom routes into a large US airport that is well served. How about Air China starts PEK-NRT-SFO, PEK-ICN-SFO and PEK-KIX-SFO? Does anyone think UA will play along?

There’s also CX’s longstanding YVR-JFK, but I think HKG is separate from the Canada-China bilateral.

incitatus wrote:

I don't quite get it. Is B6 saying that in order to be consistent, United has got to come out publicly against ALL 5th freedom routes by foreign carriers touching the US? I don't see that posture as the only one that is consistent.

The equivalent service to EK's 5th freedom routes would be Air China to pipe a bunch of fifth freedom routes into a large US airport that is well served. How about Air China starts PEK-NRT-SFO, PEK-ICN-SFO and PEK-KIX-SFO? Does anyone think UA will play along?

B6 is being silly.

CA wouldn’t do any of those as a) there’s plenty of local PEK-SFO demand negating the need to make an intermediate stop and b) due to a), CA wouldn’t use one of their slots for such an endeavour.

It only feels like a shock, because there are so few carriers that use the bilateral rights that are available. But do remember, a bunch of carriers dumped their fifth freedoms routes to/from Latin America in the past few decades:

- Varig and VASP both had service from Brazil to Tokyo via LAX with traffic rights on both legs. - KE served SEL/LAX/GRU with traffic rights on both legs all the way up to 2016!